[CWG-Stewardship] ICANN Board as "regulator" (was: A liaison from the Board to CWG)

Thu Feb 26 19:20:34 UTC 2015

Eduardo,

In regards to .INT, might I suggest the question get asked to the other 
communities - Numbers (RIR's) & Protocols (IETF). They might have 
identified the issue as well and may have possible way forward.

regards

Robert

--
Robert Guerra
Phone: +1 416-893-0377
Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom
Email: rguerra at privaterra.org
PGP Keys : https://keybase.io/rguerra

On 26 Feb 2015, at 14:07, Eduardo Diaz wrote:

> Can ISOC manage it?
>
> -ed
>
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond 
> <ocl at gih.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> actually the Management of .INT is a high stakes political game.
>>
>> The ITU has affirmed for many years that they wish to be managing 
>> .INT
>>
>> Two references:
>>
>> - Response from the ITU on Response to Request for Comments on the
>> Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Functions; National
>> Telecommunications and Informat
>> ion Administration, Docket No. 110207099–1099–01, RIN 
>> 0660–XA23;
>> published in the Federal Register /Vol. 76, No. 38 / Friday, February
>> 25, 2011, page 10569
>>
>> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/comments/110207099-1099-01/attachments/ITU_E910_IANA%20NOI%20response_30-03-2011_final.pdf
>>
>> - ITU Recommendation E.910
>> http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-E.910-200512-I
>>
>> Given this political hot potato, would it be wise for ICANN to simply
>> divest itself of it within 2 years or should it hold on to it?
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Olivier
>>
>> On 26/02/2015 16:29, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>> Hi, Andrew
>>> Fiona Alexander of NTIA has made a frequent point of telling us that
>> .int is currently in the IANA contract (C.2.9.4) and a complete 
>> proposal
>> will have to decide what to do with it.
>>>
>>> I personally believe that ICANN and/or IANA should get rid of this
>> function. It's not central to their missions and I'd like to maintain 
>> a
>> clean line between the root zone registry and TLD registry operators.
>>>
>>> By the same token I think the stakes are pretty low on this one and 
>>> if
>> we just said "it stays with ICANN" most planets would remain in their
>> orbits.
>>>
>>> A better middle ground might be to specify, as part of the 
>>> transition,
>> that ICANN will come up with a plan to divest itself of it within 2 
>> years.
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-
>>>> bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
>>>> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 9:30 AM
>>>> To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] ICANN Board as "regulator" (was: A
>> liaison
>>>> from the Board to CWG)
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 01:18:07PM +0000, Lindeberg, Elise wrote:
>>>>> We can discuss the conditions around ICANNs administration of .int
>> today,
>>>> but responding to your comment : "I don't believe ICANN/IANA is in 
>>>> any
>>>> competition with anyone to operate the int registry, because the 
>>>> USG
>>>> specifies the operator and, as far as I know, hasn't put the 
>>>> operation
>> out to
>>>> bid"
>>>>> - I think it is expected from the community, at least from the GAC
>> side,
>>>> that the CWG discuss and have thoughts on what we see as the best
>>>> solution for the .int post transition  - that is when US GOV no 
>>>> longer
>> have
>>>> the possibility to specify/change through a bid.
>>>> I am prepared to believe that lots of people think the 
>>>> specification of
>> the
>>>> operator of int is covered in this transition, but I don't actually 
>>>> see
>> that in
>>>> any of the materials.  The current NTIA-ICANN agreement is for the
>>>> _operation_ of the int zone, but not for the _policy_ of it.  That
>> seems to me
>>>> to be different from the root zone, where the policies governing 
>>>> the
>> root
>>>> zone (all the co-ordination and so on) are also vested in ICANN's
>> policy side.
>>>>
>>>> In other words, ICANN is performing the technical functions for 
>>>> int,
>> but not
>>>> the registry operator function broadly construed.  This is rather 
>>>> like
>> (for
>>>> example) org: PIR is the registry operator, and it contracts to 
>>>> Afilias
>> to
>>>> perform the technical functions.  PIR could pull that technical
>> operations
>>>> contract and give it to someone else.
>>>> Contrast this with (say) info, where ICANN has delegated operation 
>>>> of
>> that
>>>> namespace (including policy) to Afilias.
>>>>
>>>> I am entirely prepared to be wrong about this (I'm often wrong), 
>>>> but if
>> I am
>>>> then I'd like a pointer to the text that shows it.
>>>>
>>>> I am not, please note, suggesting that int isn't a problem.  I'm 
>>>> just
>> noting
>>>> that it might be a problem that we don't have to solve in order to
>> undertake
>>>> the transition.  Any burden we can shed at this late date is an
>> advantage to
>>>> us, I suggest.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>
>>>> A
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Andrew Sullivan
>>>> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>>>> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>>> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>>
>
>
>
> -- 
> *NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential 
> and/or
> subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named
> addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not 
> use,
> disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this 
> email by
> mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship